Setting the Worth of the Guilt-Offering Ram in Sacred Shekels

"A ram without blemish from the flock, of silver shekels" (Leviticus 5:15). Our Rabbis taught: One who says, "It is upon me to bring an offering worth a sela to the altar," brings a lamb, for there is nothing offered for a sela except a lamb. How do we know this? Since the Merciful One said that the guilt-offering ram is worth silver shekels, it follows that a yearling lamb is worth a sela. As it is written, "a lamb in its first year" (Leviticus 12:6), and we have learned in the Mishnah that the bird-pairs once stood at a quarter-dinar each on that very day. And since the Merciful One had pity upon the poor person, making his offering one-sixteenth of the rich person's, He likewise had pity upon the poorest of the poor, making his one-sixteenth of the poor person's. If so, how much is the poor person's portion? A quarter. And how many small coins is that? Forty-eight perutot. And one-sixteenth of the poor person's portion is how much? Three perutot. If so, where it is taught "from here you learn that the tenth of an ephah is brought for a peruta" — why a peruta? You said the tenth of an ephah belongs to the poorest of the poor, and you said it is one-sixteenth of the poor person's portion, which we reckoned at three perutot. The teacher derives it from the woman who has given birth, who brings one bird in place of a lamb, which is one thirty-second of a lamb. And the poorest-of-poor portion is how much? One-sixteenth of the poor person's. From where does he learn it? From the lamb. By this reckoning it comes to a peruta and a half. Rava said: The whole matter is derived from the woman who has given birth, and this is what is meant: Since He had pity upon the poor person to make it one thirty-second of the rich — and what is that? The bird of the woman who has given birth — the Merciful One also had pity upon the poorest of the poor, and what is that? The tenth of an ephah, to be one thirty-second of the poor person's. If so, it comes to less a quarter of a peruta. Indeed so; yet it is not the way of the world to bring less than a peruta to the Sanctuary. Rabbi Eliezer said: This guilt-offering comes on account of a sin, and a sin-offering comes on account of a sin. Just as the sin-offering does not come for a deliberate act as for an inadvertent one, so this guilt-offering should not come for a deliberate act as for an inadvertent one. Or go this way: This is called "guilt," and the other guilt-offerings are called "guilt." Just as the other guilt-offerings come for a deliberate act as for an inadvertent one, so this comes for a deliberate act as for an inadvertent one. Let us see to which it is more similar: we derive a matter that carries the penalty of death from a matter that carries the penalty of death, and let the other guilt-offerings that carry no death penalty not prove otherwise. Or go this way: We derive a stringent guilt-offering of a two-year-old from a stringent guilt-offering of a two-year-old, and let the yearling female not prove otherwise. Therefore Scripture teaches "in error" (Leviticus 5:15), to exclude the deliberate sinner. "From the holy things of the LORD" — those things dedicated to the Name; this excludes lesser holy things, which are not dedicated to the Name. I might have included only the bulls and goats that are burned, which are all dedicated to the Name. From where do I include a burnt-offering, whose hide is a gift to the priest, and the most-holy offerings whose flesh and innards are subject to trespass before the sprinkling of the blood, and the innards of lesser holy offerings after the sprinkling of the blood? Scripture teaches "from the holy things of the LORD" — it includes them. From where do I include the forbidden fat as subject to the law of trespass? Scripture teaches "from the holy things of the LORD" — it includes it. I might think I should include the blood; Scripture teaches "from the holy things of the LORD" — it limits. And why have you seen fit to include the fat and exclude the blood? After Scripture both included and limited, I include the fat, which is equal to the flesh regarding the laws of refuse-sacrifice, leftover, and ritual impurity, and I exclude the blood, which is not equal to the flesh in those laws. From where do I include things dedicated to the Temple upkeep as subject to trespass? Scripture teaches "from the holy things of the LORD" — it includes them. This applies whether one dedicated to the altar things fit for the altar, or to the Temple upkeep things fit for the upkeep, or dedicated to the upkeep things fit for the altar, or dedicated to the altar things fit for the upkeep. If one dedicated to both purposes things fit for neither — such as brine, fish-pickle, fish, and locusts — from where do we know the law of trespass applies? Scripture teaches "from the holy things of the LORD" — it includes them. If one dedicated a hen to the altar, the law of trespass applies to it; turtledoves to the Temple upkeep, the law of trespass applies to them and to their eggs. A pit full of water, a dunghill full of manure, a dovecote full of doves, a tree full of fruit, a field full of crops — from where do we know that the law of trespass applies to what is inside them? Scripture teaches "from the holy things of the LORD" — it includes them. I might think that if one dedicated turtledoves to the altar the law would apply to their eggs, or one dedicated a pit and afterward it filled with water, a dunghill that afterward filled with manure, a dovecote that filled with doves, a tree that afterward bore fruit, a field that afterward filled with grasses — that the law of trespass would apply to what is inside them. Scripture teaches "from the holy things of the LORD" — it limits. Rabbi Yose says: One who dedicates a field and a tree, the law of trespass applies to them and to their growths, because they are growths of consecrated property. "And he shall bring it" — even after the Day of Atonement. "A ram" — a stringent two-year-old. "From the flock" — to include all in the category, even a deaf-mute ewe, even a witless one, even a dwarfed one. "From the flock" — and not from the half-grown ram. "By your valuation in silver" — I might think dinars; Scripture teaches "shekels." I might think copper shekels; Scripture teaches "silver." I might think Babylonian, Median, or Cappadocian coin; Scripture teaches "by the sacred shekel" — the selas of the sanctuary, the selas of Tyre. "For a guilt-offering" — that he set aside coins designated as a guilt-offering.